CC 05-06-2025 Item No. 13 Modification to Westport_Written Communications (added 5-5-25)CC 05-06-2025
Item No. 13
Modification to
Westport
Development
Written Communications
From:James Lloyd
To:Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; City Council
Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office;
City Clerk
Subject:public comment re item 13 for 5/6/25 Council meeting
Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 2:54:51 PM
Attachments:Cupertino - 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard - HAA Letter - CC.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re
item 13 for the 5/6/25 Council meeting, the proposed 272-unit housing development project at
21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, including 29 units affordable to very low-income
households.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
james@calhdf.org
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
May 5, 2025
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
By email: lchao@cupertino.gov; kmoore@cupertino.gov; smohan@cupertino.gov;
jrfruen@cupertino.gov; rwang@cupertino.gov; citycouncil@cupertino.gov
CC: piug@cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov;
CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov
Dear Cupertino City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its
obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 272-unit
housing development project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, including 29 units
a ordable to very low-income households. These laws include the Housing Accountability
Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 2097.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general
plan compliant housing development projects unless indings can be made regarding
speci ic, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The
HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would
render the project infeasible or reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written
indings are made. (Id. at subd. (d).) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area
devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with
local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers
that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project
noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, §
65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the
project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL o ers the proposed development certain
protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in
residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
and concessions with respect to ground floor retail, in addition to the previously approved
waivers and concessions, unless it makes written indings as required by Government Code,
section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) that the waivers would have a speci ic, adverse impact upon
health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid
the speci ic adverse impact, or as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision
(d)(1) that the concessions would not result in identi iable and actual cost reductions, that
the concessions would have a speci ic, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the
concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such indings, bears
the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL speci ically allows for a
reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and
concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when
an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL,
the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude
construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the
bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74
Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Finally, the project is exempt from o -street parking pursuant to AB 2097 given its location
near transit. CalHDF understands that City sta is contesting the applicability of the law to
the project, given that the previous version of the project was entitled before the law came
into e ect.
First, the project is seeking amended entitlements, and sta have accordingly forced the
project to go through additional environmental review accordingly. A denial of the amended
entitlements would be a denial of the project, governed by the restrictions imposed on the
City by the HAA, outlined above. The presence of any previous entitlement on the site does
not change the need for the city to make indings under the HAA for any denial of the project
currently under consideration.
Additionally, AB 2097 clearly states “Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of
the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this
section.” (Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (i).) The Legislature has clearly articulated its intent that
local agencies should interpret the law as prohibiting parking requirements.
Furthermore, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”)
has issued guidance that AB 2097 can, in fact, be applied retroactively. From page 6 of the
linked January 2025 memorandum:
Can AB 2097 be used to eliminate an existing parking agreement?
Yes, with the exception of contractual commercial parking agreements with a public
agency that were executed before January 1, 2023.
2 of 3
The parking in question is not a contractual commercial parking agreement with a public
agency, and therefore the HCD guidance is that AB 2097 can be used to eliminate the parking
agreement between the applicant and the city.
Finally, it is unclear why the City is ighting to impose parking requirements on assisted
living and memory care units, where residents are likely unable to drive or choose not to.
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing
shortage. New housing such as this is a public bene it; it will provide badly-needed
a ordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local
businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. Most
importantly, it will allow seniors to age with dignity by providing invaluable assisted living
and memory care housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the
proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it,
consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-pro it corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
From:radler digiplaces.com
To:City Clerk
Subject:PPT slides for May 6 City Council meeting, Item #13
Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 10:55:33 AM
Attachments:Richard Adler 5.6.25.pptx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Attached is a Powerpoint presentation (3 slides) that I would like to use with a public
comment I plan to make in relation to Item #13 on the City Council meeting agenda for
tomorrow night, May 6th (Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and
Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development).
Thank you,
Richard Adler
Age Friendly Cupertino
Presentation to
Cupertino City Council
Item #13:
Westport Development Permit Modification
Richard Adler
Age-Friendly Cupertino
May 6, 2025
Cupertino’s 65+ and 75+ Population
2015-2035
Richard Adler May 6, 2025 2
Need for Assisted Living by Age
Richard Adler May 6, 2025 3
Prevalence of Alzheimer’s
in Cupertino’s 65+ Population
Richard Adler May 6, 2025 4
Memory Care 103 ?
Units Available:
Data Sources
1.Cupertino’s 65+ Population, 2015-2035
2015 City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Master Plan Demographic Analysis (2016)
2020 Same as above (updated for 2020)
2025 Neilsberg demographic insights
2030-35 Projections:
•Santa Clara County Office of Aging Reports
•State of California Department of Finance population projections
•U.S. Census Bureau trends and regional aging patterns in Silicon Valley
Richard Adler May 6, 2025 5
2. Prevalence of Alzheimer’s in Cupertino, 2025-2035
Alzheimer’s Association: 2024 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures
https://www.alz.org/media/Documents/alzheimers-facts-and-figures.pdf
California Department of Public Health – Alzheimer’s in California
https://www.cdph.ca.gov
U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates and Projections
Santa Clara County Public Health Department – Aging and Health Reports
https://publichealth.sccgov.org
Neilsberg Demographic Reports (2025 estimates)
https://www.neilsberg.com/insights/cupertino-ca-population-by-age/
From: DeWitt, Cascade <cascade.zak@related.com>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 1:32 PM
To: Nicholas Roosevelt <nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com>; Liang Chao
<lchao@cupertino.org>; City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>
Cc: James Abrams <jabrams@jabramslaw.com>; Simsik, Balint
<Balint.Simsik@related.com>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews
<FloyA@cupertino.gov>; City Attorney's Office <cityattorney@cupertino.gov>
Subject: RE: Letter Regarding Item #13 on City Council's Agenda for May 6 (Westport
Project Building #1)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please try this link:
https://related.box.com/s/qf05uttembjt7hgk3d2frcqyfnhg21xi
Cascade Zak DeWitt
(415) 342-4638
cascade.zak@related.com
From: Nicholas Roosevelt <nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:55 PM
To: lchao@cupertino.org; citycouncil@cupertino.gov
Cc: James Abrams <jabrams@jabramslaw.com>; Simsik, Balint
<Balint.Simsik@related.com>; DeWitt, Cascade <cascade.zak@related.com>; Gian
Martire <GianM@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews <FloyA@cupertino.gov>;
cityattorney@cupertino.gov
Subject: Letter Regarding Item #13 on City Council's Agenda for May 6 (Westport Project
Building #1)
Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers—
In the following link, please find a letter regarding tomorrow’s hearing on the proposed
modifications to Westport Project Building 1 (Item #13 on the Council’s agenda for
tomorrow evening):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bo74navus1i21wi48hrs4/J-Abrams-Letter-re-Westport-
Revised-Program.pdf?rlkey=0fajpzbthtz0s25jp5rpwne8b&dl=0 [dropbox.com]
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any issue accessing the file link (the link is
necessary as opposed to an email attachment due to the size of the attached September 6,
2024 plan set for the proposed modifications).
Thanks,
Nick
-------------
Nick Roosevelt
J. Abrams Law, P.C.
538 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com
Cell: (504)-717-9251
______________________________
This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) may be privileged,
confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of
this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this email and
permanently delete the message from your computer. Nothing contained in this message
and/or any attachment(s) constitutes a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities.
1
J. ABRAMS LAW, P.C.
538 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Nick Roosevelt
nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com
VIA E-EMAIL
May 5, 2025
Liang Chao
Mayor
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
lchao@cupertino.org
Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1
Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers:
This firm represents the project sponsor of the “Building 1” development (“Building 1”) within
the Westport Cupertino project (the “Project”). The City Council is scheduled to hear proposed
modifications to the Project on May 6, 2025. In advance of the hearing we wish to raise the
following issues with the City Council.
AB2097 & Condition Regarding Additional Parking
We refer you to our April 18, 2025 letter to the Planning Commission, which provides detailed
reasoning why the Staff Report in the case file for your May 6 hearing incorrectly asserts that the
Project is not eligible to use AB2097 to reduce its required parking (the letter can be found on
page 25 of the public comment pdf included in the case file for the May 6, 2025 hearing). We
were disappointed to see the Planning Commission adopt the staff report’s recommended
condition of approval requiring that the Project add 20 additional surface parking spaces, but
reiterate that in the interest of expedient approval of the Project, the project sponsor is willing to
work with Planning staff on modifying the Project’s site plan to include 20 additional parking
spaces. This would require reconfiguration of the ground-level plan for the site, likely including
changes to the currently proposed landscaped and open areas and potentially including
modifications to the building’s first-level floor plan to arrive at a more efficient parking layout
capable of supporting the additional 20 spaces.
We continue to maintain that the City Council should reject the recommendation of staff and the
Planning Commission and conclude that AB2097 does not permit the City Council to condition
Project approval on the requirement to add 20 additional parking spaces. However, should the
City Council ultimately chose to include the condition, we would ask that the Council’s
condition clarify that any design modifications necessary to accommodate 20 additional spaces
2
shall be reviewed and finally approved by Planning staff, without additional hearings before the
Planning Commission or City Council.
Plan Set
The case file for the May 6 hearing does not include the record plan set proposed by the project
sponsor for approval and instead only includes a site plan sheet. Further, the draft approvals
include in the case file for the May 6 hearing reference the initially submitted plan set for the
Project dated April 1, 2024, instead of the latest resubmittal of the plan set addressing staff
comment dated September 6, 2024. For the sake of record clarity, we have attached the
September 6, 2024 plan set to this letter as Attachment 1 and hope that staff will clarify on May
6 the correct plan set date reference for the Project’s approvals.
Please note that we have made one change to the September 6, 2024 record plan set included as
Attachment 1, which is a redline annotation on the cover sheet (Sheet G11) flagging that the
listed parking figures are subject to the analysis and modifications recommended by staff in the
Staff Report for the May 6 hearing (discussed on the previous page of this letter).
Increased Retail / Reduced Park Land Fee
In response to the Planning Commission’s additional recommended condition of approval
intended to incentivize adding 4,000 square feet of retail by waiving some or all of the Park Land
Dedication In-Lieu Fee, City staff requested supplemental sponsor feedback on the feasibility
and cost of including additional retail space on the ground floor of Building 1, the sponsor team
conducted a preliminary assessment and believes it may be feasible to add approximately 2,500
square feet of additional retail space on the ground floor. Achieving this outcome would require
relocating certain uses to Level 6, expanding the building’s overall gross square footage, and
reducing the currently proposed setbacks on Level 6 (that is, the building’s currently proposed
envelope would increase at Level 6). Sponsor estimates the increased cost to implement these
changes would be approximately $3 million.
These figures are based on an early-stage analysis, initiated specifically at City staff’s request to
evaluate the Planning Commission’s recommended condition added at its hearing regarding the
potential for any incremental retail that could be added and at what cost.
Notably, to sponsor’s knowledge, City staff have not identified a pathway by which any
incentive to add retail by waiver of the Park Land fee might be approved. Importantly, to
maintain the financial viability of the Project, it is critical that no additional delays or
discretionary approvals occur beyond the scheduled May 6, 2025 hearing.
3
We look forward to presenting the Project to the City Council on May 6 and respectfully request
the City approve the requested modifications in a manner consistent with requests and
clarifications set forth in this letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Roosevelt
CC:
All City Councilmembers
citycouncil@cupertino.gov
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
GianM@cupertino.org
Floy Andrews
City Attorney
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
fandrews@awattorneys.com
4
ATTACHMENT 1
Record Plan Set Dated September 6, 2024
(including redline annotation re parking on Sheet G11)
Basement has been removed.
9
*REMAINING PARKING SPCES TO BE PROVIDED OFFSITE
BUILDING 2
RETAIL SPACES FOR BLDG #2 BMR 7
7
16
RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE SPACES 18 spaces
*REMAINING PARKING SPCES TO BE PROVIDED OFFSITE
9
SPACES TO BE PROVIDED OFF-SITE
SPACES TO BE PROVIDED OFF-SITE
*
LOADING /
TRASH
LOADING /
TRASH
209GGREASETALLOW BIN
A-A-SIM
APOLLO MODEL A1000 STATIONARYHAND-FED COMPACTOR (2) TOTAL
1/8" THICK S TE E L DIA MONDTREA D BA CK ING, TY PSEE NOTE 4120V 15A SERVICEOUTLET, SEE NOTE 10
HB
1HR FIRE-RATED WALL BY OTHERSTY P (S.A .D.) S EE NOTE 3
PP
4CY FLCOMPACTOR
CONTAINERCOMBINED WASTE
PP
4CY FLCOMPACTOR
CONTAINERCOMBINED RECYCLING
ELEC. PALLETTRUCK SEE NOTE 9
7'-0
"
W
I
D
E
R
O
L
L
-
U
P
D
O
O
R
OC
SPARE 4CY FLCOMPACTORCONTAINERCOMBINED RECYCLING
3CY FL LOOSE
CONTAINERCOMBINED COMPOST
SPARE 4CY FLCOMPACTORCONTAINERCOMBINED WASTE
FD
3'-0
"
F
I
R
E
EGR
E
S
S
D
O
O
R
STAFF/BOH
LOBBY /
OFFICE /
MAIL
LOBBY /
OFFICE /
MAIL RETAIL
ADMIN/OFFICE
BOH/MECH
OR LOBBY LOUNGE
OR LOBBY LOUNGE
LOBBY/LOUNGE
E
A-A
-SIM
8 TREA D BA CK ING, TY PSEE NOTE 4120V 15A SERVICEOUTLET, SEE NOTE 10
HB
TORMBINED RECYCLING
ELEC. PALLETTRUCK SEE NOTE 9
7'-0
"
W
I
D
E
R
O
L
L
-
U
P
D
O
O
R
OC
SPARE 4CY FLCOMPACTORCONTAINERCOMBINED RECYCLING
3CY FL LOOSE
CONTAINERCOMBINED COMPOST
SPARE 4CY FLCOMPACTORCONTAINERCOMBINED WASTE
FD
3'-0
"
F
I
R
E
EGR
E
S
S
D
O
O
R
209GGREASETALLOW BIN
4CY FLCOMPACTOR
CONTAINERCOMBINED WASTESTAFF/BOH
LOBBY
1766 SQ. FT.
BISTRO / KITCHEN
1905 SQ. FT.
PANTRY
91 SQ. FT.
T.
27
'
-
8
"
TY
Y
RETAIL
ADMIN/OFFICE
THEATER
1460 SQ. FT.39
'
-
2
"
FU
BOH/MECH 27
'
-
8
"
L
LOBBY
1766 SQ. FT.
PANTRY
91 SQ. FT.
L
FT.
WELLNESSBOH/MECH
OUSE
USE
USE
2: BMR
OR LIVIN
L